FILMSS 2 Source Selection Statement (SSS).pdf

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center

Source Selection Statement for Fully Integrated Lifecycle Mission Support Services 2 80ARC 19R0004

On July 15, 2021, I along with NASA Source Evaluation Board (SEB) ex-officio members, met virtually with the SEB members appointed to evaluate the proposals for the Fully Integrated Lifecycle Mission Support Services 2 (FILMSS 2) procurement.

During this meeting, the SEB presented its final evaluation of findings to me, the Source Selection Authority (SSA), and we discussed those findings to assure that I had a full understanding of the SEB’s evaluation.

I assessed the SEB’s findings and its evaluation of the proposals. This Source Selection Statement reflects my independent judgment, which I based upon a comparative assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the proposals and the evaluation criteria prescribed in the Request for Proposal (RFP). The basis and rationale for my selection are set forth below.

Procurement Description

Ames Research Center (ARC) has a continuing need for technical services to continue capabilities that encompass all phases of flight and ground mission/project lifecycles, including but not limited to, those involving living organisms and research and technology development. Additionally, this procurement will provide concurrent technical service support to multiple programs and functional offices at ARC, including Virtual Institute operations, as well as public affairs and outreach.

On May 13, 2019, the RFP for this effort was issued. This procurement was conducted as a full and open competition and will result in a single award, Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF), Definitive Core and Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. The minimum amount of the IDIQ supplies or services that will be ordered during the effective period of this contract is $5,000,000, and the maximum amount is $185,000,000. The period of performance consists of a 60-day phase-in period, a two-year base, and three one-year options, resulting in a maximum performance period of five years and sixty days.

Evaluation Procedure

The SEB evaluated proposals in accordance with the RFP, and with requirements set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.3, “Source Selection,” and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Subpart 1815.3, “Source Selection.”

Section M of the RFP, Evaluation Approach, advised Offerors that the Government may award a contract based solely on the initial offers received and without discussion of such offers. Accordingly, each Offeror was required to submit its initial proposal to the Government using the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint.

However, the Government reserved the right to hold discussions if awarding on the basis of initial offers was determined not to be in the Government’s best interest. If the Government conducted written or oral discussions, then it would seek revised proposals from Offerors within the competitive range.

The RFP identified three evaluation Factors: Mission Suitability (Volume II), Past Performance (Volume III), and Cost/Price (Volume IV). Of these evaluation Factors, Mission Suitability is more important than Cost and Cost is more important than Past Performance. Mission Suitability and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Cost.

The Solicitation also advised that the Mission Suitability Factor consists of three Subfactors: Management Approach, Technical Approach, and Small Business Utilization. The Subfactors are shown below with their respective elements and point allocation, which signifies their weight.

Table: Mission Suitability Factor

Subfactors Assigned Weight

Management Approach MA-1. Management and Organizational Structure MA-2. Key Personnel MA-2. Key Personnel Commitment Letters, Resumes, and Position Descriptions MA-3. Staffing, Recruitment, Retention, and Training MA-4. Subcontract Management/Partnering Approach MA-5. Total Compensation Plan MA-6. Phase-in Plan

Technical Approach TA-1. Technical Understanding TA-2. Hypothetical Case Study - Biological Payload Development Beyond Low Earth Orbit

Small Business Utilization SB-1. Small Business Subcontracting SB-2. Commitment to the Small Business Program 100

TOTAL 1000

The RFP stipulated that the overall Mission Suitability Factor would only receive a numerical score, and the Mission Suitability subfactors would be assigned adjectival ratings and numerical scores. In accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(3), “Technical

Evaluation”, the following were the potential Mission Suitability adjectival ratings:

Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, and Poor. In Section M, Evaluation Approach, the RFP defined these adjectival ratings and provided applicable percentile ranges at each rating level.

For the Past Performance factor, the RFP advised Offerors that relevancy will be assessed by each Offeror's and proposed major subcontractor’s record of performing services or delivering products similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of the instant acquisition. NASA reviewed CPARs ratings for past performance references identified in the Offerors’ proposals, if available, as well as for other contracts found independently. The RFP required an evaluation of the Past Performance Factor using the following level of confidence ratings: Very High Level of Confidence, High Level of Confidence, Moderate Level of Confidence, Low Level of Confidence, Very Low Level of Confidence, and Neutral. Section M of the RFP defined these level of confidence ratings, consistent with NFS 1815.305(a)(2).

The SEB, with assistance of Cost Analysts/Auditors, conducted Cost proposal evaluations in accordance with the RFP and FAR Subpart 15.4. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d), the SEB performed a cost realism analysis on each Offeror’s proposed cost of the Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee portion to ensure the Offeror understood the magnitude and complexity of the FILMSS 2 requirement, which resulted in an assessment of probable cost and certain probable cost adjustments. Phase-In was reviewed and evaluated for reasonableness. For each Offeror, the total evaluated cost for selection purposes was determined by the sum of the FILMSS 2 Core Technical Services and FILMSS 2 IDIQ Task Orders, after probable cost adjustments; and FILMSS 2 Contract Management Core Requirement.

Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals

A total of five (5) Amendments to the RFP were issued by the Contracting Officer. The first four amendments were issued prior to the proposal due date. The final (fifth) amendment was sent after receipt of proposals only to those who submitted proposals.

Five (5) Offerors submitted timely proposals by the required due date of July 10, 2019.

Said proposals were received from the following Offerors in response to the final RFP, by the specified closing time and date:

Amentum (renamed from AECOM effective January 31, 2020) Jacobs

KBR

Leidos

SAIC

Initial Evaluation

The SEB conducted its evaluation in accordance with the RFP and with requirements set forth in FAR Subpart 15.3 and NFS Subpart 1815.3. The SEB was comprised of evaluators with expertise in certain technical disciplines in order to provide assessments of strengths and weaknesses for each Offeror’s proposal, as measured against the solicitation’s evaluation factors and subfactors.

All voting SEB members read each volume of the proposals, which included both written sections and oral presentation slides. In addition, the SEB members attended live oral presentations for Mission Suitability and Past Performance from each Offeror, which the SEB audio recorded. The SEB members individually identified findings (significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and deficiencies, if applicable) within the Mission Suitability Factor, including the subfactors. Then, the SEB met as a group to review all individual findings and reach consensus on overall strengths and weaknesses for each Offeror. Where no strengths, weaknesses, or deficiencies were identified for a particular Mission Suitability element, the SEB determined that the Offeror’s proposal met the requirements for that element.

The SEB established the appropriate adjectival rating and numerical scores in accordance with the RFP. For the Mission Suitability Factor, the SEB assigned adjectival ratings to the subfactors by the consensus of the SEB in accordance with the definitions in the RFP. Once the SEB assigned an adjectival rating it agreed upon a percentage score. The percentage score was then multiplied by the weighting of each subfactor to determine its numerical score. Numerical scores were given for each subfactor in Mission Suitability and the sum of the numerical scores resulted in an overall numerical score for Mission Suitability.

In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A), the SEB members individually evaluated the Past Performance factor, based on the Offeror’s Past Performance Volume, the past performance questionnaires, and information obtained from PPIRS. The SEB members then met as a group to reach consensus and assign a level of confidence rating on overall Past Performance for each Offeror. The SEB’s evaluation documented each Offeror's relevant past performance.

The SEB performed a cost realism analysis and applied probable cost adjustments when applicable for an offeror on the total Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee value for the Core Technical Services and the IDIQ Task Orders in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.4.

Phase-In was reviewed and evaluated for reasonableness.

The SEB briefed me on its initial findings on October 13, 2020.

Competitive Range Determination and Discussions

Based on the initial findings developed and presented in relation to these five proposals, it was determined that it would be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions. I made the determination to include only two of the five Offerors in the competitive range. KBR and Leidos were included in the competitive range, and Amentum, Jacobs, and SAIC were excluded from the competitive range. The Contracting Officer prepared and finalized a Competitive Range Determination Memorandum on December 4, 2020.

The Contracting Officer provided written notification and discussion questions to both Offerors within the competitive range on December 4, 2020. At the conclusion of discussions, the Contracting Officer issued a request for Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) from the two remaining Offerors on January 11, 2021. Both FPRs were timely received by the due date of January 26, 2021.

Discussions Re-opening and Second FPRs (FPR2)

Discussions were re-opened on June 17, 2021 when the SEB learned that both Offerors had changes to their key personnel from those originally proposed. FPR2s were timely received on June 25, 2021.

All SEB members read the FPR2 proposals and identified whether findings based on the initial proposal and first FPR (strengths and weaknesses) for each Factor and Subfactor remained or changed based on newly submitted information. The SEB re-scored and assigned the final adjectival ratings as applicable. The SEB evaluated the FPRs for the Cost/Price Factor. The SEB and the Price Analyst performed cost analysis, price analysis, and cost realism analysis to establish price reasonableness in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.4.

Following the conclusion of the second round of discussions, the SEB presented its updated evaluation findings to me on July 15, 2021. The final evaluation findings were as follows:

Final Evaluation Findings of the SEB

Offeror

Mission Suitability

Mission Suitability

Mission Suitability TOTAL Past

Performance Probable

Cost/Price

Adjectival Rating

Adjectival Rating

Adjectival Rating

Mission Suitability

Level of Confidence

(not including Phase-In)

Technical Approach

Manage-ment

Approach

Small Business Utilization

(1000 points)

(400

(500 points)

(100

KBR

Excellent Excellent Excellent 925 Very High Lowest Probable

Cost

LEIDOS

Excellent Excellent Excellent 947 Very High Highest Probable

Cost

I. Mission Suitability Findings:

With respect to the Mission Suitability factor, narrative summaries of the individual findings for each Offeror are provided below.

KBR: KBR’s Mission Suitability score was 925 out of a possible 1000 points, which was the lower Mission Suitability score of the two final Offerors.

In Mission Suitability, under the Technical Approach subfactor, KBR received three (3) Significant Strengths and eight (8) Strengths:

Significant Strengths:

1. KBR's proposed approach is feasible, highly effective, and comprehensive. It leverages processes, risk management, quality and configuration management, and technical communications approaches associated with developing, implementing and executing a life-science and life-support technology project involving space-flight hardware and greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

2. KBR's discussion and detailed narrative of the different experiment processes needed for different research environments is comprehensive, highly effective and feasible and greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

3. KBR’s proposed approach to science communication in a public affairs setting is highly effective and greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

Strengths:

1. KBR's complete and very effective process for defining success factors will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

2. KBR's complete and very effective quality process, including an understanding of specimen care and procedures to understand and analyze failures in the lab environment, will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

3. KBR's very complete consideration of factors in data collection will have some positive impact on successful scientific data capture to publication and will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

4. KBR’s detailed, very effective and feasible proposed approach to development of curriculum, development and measurement of learning objectives as well as best practices for management of enrollment/student selection in the Space Life Sciences Training Program and GeneLab for High Schools will have some positive impact on contract performance.

5. KBR's complete and very effective approach to managing meetings, workshops and events (including virtual solutions) will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

6. KBR’s very complete rationale for its overall choice of model organism and design of the experiment to include multi-omics analysis and statistical strength will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

7. KBR’s very complete and highly detailed schedule with appropriate milestones identified, a detailed list of contractor and government resources required, and demonstrated knowledge of NASA success criteria typical of this type of mission will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

8. KBR's very complete, innovative, and feasible approach for raising public awareness will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

In Mission Suitability, under the Management Approach subfactor, KBR received five (5) Significant Strengths and ten (10) Strengths:

Significant Strengths:

1. KBR proposed a highly efficient approach which provides the Program Manager with full autonomy to make key decisions. This will increase the likelihood of quick starts to new work, which will add significant efficiency and greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

2. KBR proposed a very detailed and highly effective approach for ensuring the support of FILMSS 2 requirements per Section 4 of the SOW in the areas of cost tracking, quality control, and continuous improvement, as well as in all aspects of administrative functions. This increases the potential for full staffing of the contract, which greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

3. KBR proposed a highly effective and efficient approach for retaining incumbent personnel that will ensure continuity of operations through phase-in and into the first year of contract performance. This greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

4. KBR's identification of potential staffing challenges and the proposed very highly effective and efficient approach for their mitigation greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

5. KBR's very highly effective and efficient proposed Phase-in Plan incorporates a detailed milestone plan, strategies for assuring continuity of services, and employee mapping to ensure seamless onboarding, which greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

Strengths:

1. KBR's proposed approach for improving lines of communication is very effective and very efficient and will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

2. KBR's proposed technical and business assistance provided by corporate offices is very effective and will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

3. KBR proposes a very effective technology for task order management and proposed process for problem resolution which will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

4. KBR's very effective basis for designating proposed key positions will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

5. KBR’s proposed key personnel have comprehensive skills and appropriate education, credentials, and experience as outlined in the key personnel resumes that qualifies the individuals to fulfill the duties defined in the position descriptions in a very effective manner that will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

6. KBR's approach to staffing, recruitment, retention and training leverages a very effective strategy for staffing the skill mix necessary to perform the requirements defined in the SOW, Contract Management, Technical Core Elements, and IDIQ task orders, which will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

7. KBR's very efficient and very effective approach to short notice, rapid recruiting of experienced and qualified personnel increases the likelihood that the 14-day goal to hire will be fulfilled and will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

8. KBR's proposed very effective approach to awards, recognition, and career progression will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

9. KBR's very effective approach for monitoring subcontractor performance will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

10. KBR's very reasonable and very effective approach to total compensation across the team will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

In Mission Suitability, under the Small Business Utilization subfactor, KBR received two

(2) Significant Strengths:

Significant Strengths:

1. KBR’s proposal to exceed six of the seven RFP subcontracting goals greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

2. KBR’s approach to providing high technology work to small business subcontractors and its commitment to utilize and support small business concerns greatly enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

Leidos: Leidos’ Mission Suitability score was 947 out of a possible 1000 points, which was the higher Mission Suitability score of the two final Offerors.

In Mission Suitability, under the Technical Approach subfactor, Leidos received four (4) Significant Strengths and eleven (11) Strengths:

Significant Strengths:

1. Leidos’ proposed feasible, highly effective, and highly comprehensive key technologies, risk management, and communications approaches associated with developing, implementing and executing a life-science and life-support technology project involving space-flight hardware greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

2. Leidos’ demonstration of its very effective and comprehensive process for defining success factors common to life sciences and bioengineering experiments will help NASA better define new experiments and greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

3. Leidos’ comprehensive and highly effective understanding of experiment processes and how they are applied differently in the ground, centrifuge, Low-Earth Orbit and Deep Space environments will aid NASA in successful design and delivery of FILMSS missions, thereby greatly enhancing the potential for successful contract performance.

4. Leidos’ highly effective and feasible processes for documenting results from a science and hardware performance experiment and carrying those results to publication greatly enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

Strengths:

1. Leidos’ process that will be used to ensure sufficient communication between stakeholders and team members conducting scientific research in the area of life sciences and bioengineering is very effective and will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

2. Leidos’ very complete, effective, and feasible processes to ensure quality, including an understanding of specimen care and procedures to understand and analyze failures in the lab environment, will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

3. Leidos’ complete, very effective, and feasible process to include training and company resources in its integrated science communications strategy will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

4. Leidos’ complete and very effective approach to development of curriculum, student selection and measurement of learning success metrics will have some positive impact on the SLSTP and GL4HS programs and thus on the successful performance of the contract.

5. Leidos’ very effective and comprehensive approach to managing meetings, workshops and events leverages an annual technology review and ongoing assessment of cutting-edge communication tools; tailored affordable virtual solutions; and an adaptive collaborative framework, which will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

6. Leidos’ very complete rationale for its overall choice of using three model organisms is scientifically appropriate. The experiment is very innovative and strategic.

Leidos’ proposed experiment allows for greater synergies in both resource utilization and data analysis, and will have a positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

7. Leidos’ approach was very complete; included a detailed, feasible schedule with appropriate milestones identified and a detailed list of contractor and government resources required; and demonstrated comprehensive knowledge of NASA success criteria typical of this type of mission, which will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

8. Leidos presents a very complete and detailed rationale for the selection of hardware and demonstrates full knowledge of NASA hardware design standards and requirements for spaceflight. The plan for refurbishment is feasible and very low risk.

Leidos’ demonstrated understanding of hardware design standards and requirements, combined with its plan for refurbishment, will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

9. Leidos’ approach for fabrication, reusability, and quality assurance is very complete, low risk, and feasible, and this will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

10. Leidos’ approach for raising public awareness is very complete and includes social media training, use of partnerships to extend the reach, and integration with Ames student programs to raise public awareness of and interest in the experiment described in the Case Study. This will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

11. Leidos proposes a very complete and feasible plan for managing public affairs.

This will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

In Mission Suitability, under the Management Approach subfactor, Leidos received six

(6) Significant Strengths and seven (7) Strengths:

Significant Strengths:

1. Leidos proposed a highly effective and efficient approach for contract management that leverages processes and tools, including processes for managing work volume fluctuations and proposed processes and tools for problem resolution techniques, which greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

2. Leidos’ highly effective and efficient plan to grant full autonomy to the Program Manager to make key decisions will appreciably increase the likelihood of quick starts to new work, which greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

3. Leidos’ highly effective approach to assembling its management team relies on a comprehensive group of individuals with appropriate education, credentials and extensive experience as outlined in the key personnel resumes. These individuals’ qualifications significantly exceed the requirements defined in the position descriptions, which greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

4. Leidos’ proposed processes, staffing, related tools and marketing strategies to attract talent necessary to staff the skill mix necessary to perform the requirements defined in the SOW, Contract Management, Technical Core Elements, and IDIQ task orders are highly effective and efficient. This will greatly enhance the potential for successful performance of the contract.

5. Leidos’ highly effective and efficient approach for retaining incumbent personnel, target capture rate (if any) as a percentage of the total workforce, and the basis for this rate; and the strategy proposed to recruit and hire incumbents for this contract will greatly enhance the potential for successful performance of the contract.

6. Leidos’ highly effective and efficient proposed Phase-in approach will greatly enhance the potential for successful performance of the contract.

Strengths:

1. Leidos’ proposed lines of authority, supervision, responsibility, and lines of communication will enable it to manage work across the contract in a very effective and efficient manner. This will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

2. Leidos’ proposed very efficient solutions for tracking and reporting schedule and cost that will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

3. Leidos includes a very detailed and effective process for replacing key personnel which proactively identifies candidates and fills any potential skill gaps for potential vacancies of key personnel. Leidos’ key personnel replacement process will increase the likelihood of continuous work without any disruption on the contract and will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

4. Leidos’ proposed very effective and efficient assessment methodologies for measuring staffing effectiveness across the Prime and Subcontractor team will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

5. Leidos’ very effective and efficient approach for mitigating the difficulties in fulfilling the staffing requirements will increase the likelihood of full staffing and will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

6. Leidos’ very effective proposed approach to awards, recognition and career progression will mitigate the risk of staffing vacancies which would adversely affect NASA missions and thus will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

7. Leidos’ very effective plan for monitoring subcontractor performance will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

In Mission Suitability, under the Small Business Utilization subfactor, Leidos received two (2) Significant Strengths:

Significant Strengths:

1. Leidos’ proposal to exceed all of the RFP subcontracting goals greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

2. Leidos’ commitment to ensuring high technology work is performed by small business partners and its very comprehensive approach for supporting small business development greatly enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

II. Past Performance Findings:

With respect to the Past Performance factor, the SEB assigned Very High Level of Confidence past performance ratings to both the KBR and Leidos proposals. The past performance ratings for each of the Offerors remained unchanged following both rounds of discussions.

III. Cost/Price Findings:

During evaluation, the Government made probable cost adjustments to the Offerors’ proposed costs where appropriate. KBR’s proposal offered the lowest total evaluated probable cost, while Leidos’ proposal offered only a very slightly higher total evaluated probable cost.

Additionally, the SEB evaluated each Offeror’s proposed phase-in cost and determined them to be reasonable.

Source Selection Decision

Prior to the final Selection Meeting on July 15, 2021, I reviewed the written presentation materials provided to me, including the SEB’s findings under the Mission Suitability Factor, the SEB’s narrative assessments under the Past Performance Factor, and the proposed and probable cost evaluation results. Based on the information presented to me and my comprehensive review of the SEB’s findings for the two Offerors’ proposals, I fully understand the evaluation process and the findings, and I concur with the SEB’s evaluation and findings. During the presentation, the SEB members also answered questions posed by me regarding the SEB’s evaluation.

At the briefing, I also specifically discussed with the SEB its reasoning for the assigned significant strengths, as well as the substantive content of these significant findings relative to other strengths. Moreover, I questioned the SEB regarding its rationale for the adjectival ratings and scores under Mission Suitability, for the assignment of Level of Confidence ratings under Past Performance, and for the probable cost adjustments made to each of the Offeror’s proposals.

I noted that the SEB assessed the Mission Suitability point scores consistently with the assigned adjectival ratings for each subfactor, which in turn were justified by the SEB’s underlying findings. I found the Past Performance evaluation to be detailed and clearly documented. Within the Cost Factor, I similarly found that the SEB made logical and sound cost adjustments. I observed that the SEB performed a comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented evaluation of proposals. I concluded that the evaluation under each of the evaluation factors was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, and I accepted the SEB’s evaluation results in their entirety.

I then turned to the decision of which proposal offered the best value to the Government. In making this determination, I referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors as specified in the RFP:

Mission Suitability is more important than Cost and Cost is more important than Past Performance. Mission Suitability and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Cost.

My selection represents my independent judgement and is based on a comparative assessment of each proposal against each of the evaluation factors identified in the RFP. In examining the SEB’s evaluation of each proposal under each evaluation factor, I did not simply tabulate the number of strengths or weaknesses each Offeror received.

Rather, I undertook a qualitative assessment of each Offeror’s proposal consistent with the evaluation scheme in order to understand the merits and drawbacks of each and to identify discriminating features.

I began with Mission Suitability, the most heavily weighted Factor. I noted that Leidos had an overall total higher Mission Suitability point score than KBR. At the subfactor level, I observed that both Leidos and KBR received the same adjectival ratings of Excellent in the Technical Approach, Management Approach, and Small Business

Utilization subfactors.

I carefully read and examined the content and details associated with the findings of both Offerors under the Mission Suitability Factor, I did not simply count and compare the number of findings nor did I solely rely on the Mission Suitability point scores; rather, I considered the potential impact of each finding and its relevance to this procurement, against the selection criteria prescribed in the RFP.

First, with regard to the second most heavily weighted Mission Suitability subfactor, “Technical Approach”, I noted that both Offerors received a couple of essentially equal significant strength findings in the “Technical Understanding” Subfactor Title. This is because both Offerors proposed excellent technical approaches for processes associated with developing, implementing and executing a life-science and life-support technology project involving space-flight hardware through its lifecycle; and both Offerors demonstrated a highly effective understanding of different experiment processes needed for different research environments; for these findings, there were no meaningful discriminators between the two Offerors.

However, Leidos received a significant strength for two areas of its proposal that I found to be very meaningful. Leidos’ proposal received a significant strength because it demonstrated a superior process for defining success factors for new experiments, which will be important to the success of NASA’s life sciences programs as NASA expands beyond low earth orbit. While KBR did receive a strength in this area for its definitions and understanding of minimal and full success, Leidos’ proposed approach demonstrated comprehensive understanding of the process for defining factors common to life sciences and bioengineering, and detailed both what its process was and how it would be implemented, exemplifying a thorough understanding of the common success factors for the experimental work articulated in the FILMSS 2 RFP. The thoroughness, the proposed training, and the oversight of the staff for each aspect of the process gives me greater confidence in the Leidos approach.

I noted that Leidos’ proposal also received another significant strength for its superior approach to documenting science and hardware performance, carrying all the way through publication. Its proposed approach provides unique incentives to its employees for publication; and the focus and approach aligns with NASA’s strategic programmatic goals and objectives, including NASA’s statutory purpose of the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activity and results thereof.

While KBR also received a strength in this area because of its proposed publication incentives for science capture to publication and its data collection process, which exceeded RFP requirements, I determined that Leidos’ approach offers additional potential benefits to NASA because it was more robust and diverse. The incentive program proposed by Leidos offers unique mechanisms to enable staff to reach its publishing milestones, as well as offering a strong incentive to publish during the entire lifecycle of science and hardware experiments. Leidos’ detailed and systematic approach gives me confidence that the results of the life science and bioengineering missions and experiments conducted during this contract will be more readily documented and disseminated to the science community.

While KBR did receive a significant strength for its proposal with regards to its approach to successful science communication to a wide range of public audiences, overall this finding did not outweigh the above significant strengths received by Leidos for Technical Understanding, as I found Leidos’ process for defining success factors as well as incentives for end-to-end dissemination of information to the science community to be of greater advantage to the Government on the whole, as a foundation for both realizing and communicating NASA science achievements through publication to the science community and beyond.

With regards to the other strength findings in Technical Understanding, Leidos had an unmatched strength because of the proposed superior process to ensure sufficient communication between stakeholders and team members (principal investigators (PIs), researchers, civil servants, engineers, hardware developers) to empower diverse groups to solve complex problems. Its proposal leverages collaboration and communication tools that are continuously evaluated and improved via Science of Team Science (SciTS) expertise and utilizes a virtual framework to address communications challenges common to large science teams and remote teams, similar to the Ames environment.

For the remaining strengths awarded to both Offerors in Technical Understanding, I deemed them essentially equal, as there were no meaningful discriminators. I concluded both provided equally strong approaches for ensuring quality, including an understanding of specimen care and procedures to understand and analyze failures in the lab environment; as well as for managing meetings, workshops, and events, held in a variety of locations, with a variety of audiences and audience sizes. Both Offerors also proposed detailed, effective and feasible approaches for curriculum development, student selection, and measurement of learning success metrics, beneficial for developing the future pipeline of STEM careers.

Next, I turned to the “Hypothetical Case Study” Subfactor Title of Technical Approach.

Technology development capabilities that encompass all phases of mission and project lifecycles for projects, including biological programs and experiments that will take place beyond earth orbit, are another critical component of the FILMSS 2 suite of requirements. I evaluated the SEB’s findings to qualitatively assess each Offeror’s ability to excel in this new performance space. In this area, as part of the Hypothetical Case Study, Leidos proposed superior innovative and strategic approaches.

Specifically, Leidos received an unmatched strength for its superior approach for the selection of hardware to conduct its proposed experiment, including the approach used for the concept and design trade off. It provided a detailed explanation of how the options were assessed, while demonstrating an understanding of NASA's hardware design standards and requirements for spaceflight. The assessment and trade study of alternate hardware choices was appropriate and comprehensive. The chosen hardware represented a lower cost, lower risk, and higher likelihood of success selection; and the rationale for hardware selection was well justified. Imperative to success, the Offeror detailed plans for modifications necessary, including certification levels that would need to be met. The proposed plan for refurbishment was also feasible and very low risk.

Leidos also received an unmatched strength for its superior approach for fabrication, assembly, test, integration, and delivery for re-usable operational end products, including parts, components, assemblies, subsystems, and systems. Its proposal demonstrated in-depth knowledge of publicly available NASA regulations on fabrication, test integration and verification, and addressed with considerable detail the likely hardware and software changes necessary to upgrade the hardware for a beyond low earth orbit mission. The proposal included changes and features to make it compatible with vehicle options, recognizing the resources of the International Space Station (ISS) would not be in place. The Offeror identified the need for a docking station, power and data links. The Offeror’s proposed plan included no gaps in the engineering rationale. It defined requirements and provided details on how it would test and verify requirements.

The proposed make or buy approach was feasible and detailed with options, included pros and cons clearly stated and demonstrated a knowledge of similar biological flight hardware available, as well as what is required to purchase or build flight hardware.

While both Offerors’ proposals received a strength for the area of the proposal detailing how they would raise public awareness and interest in the experiment proposed for the case study, Leidos’ proposal also received an additional unmatched strength specifically for demonstrating a clear strategy for addressing unforeseen contingencies or outcomes through its proposed plan for managing public affairs issues for the hypothetical. The proposal emphasizes a message of forward planning and relevance of the proposed work to larger NASA mission goals, providing a larger context for even negative issues.

Additionally, both Offerors each received a strength for their choice of model organism in their proposals; and defining success factors for this hypothetical experiment. No meaningful discriminators between the two Offerors’ proposals stood out to me for those strengths within the Hypothetical Case Study.

Turning next to the most heavily weighted subfactor, “Management Approach”, in my judgement, and consistent with the point scores assigned under this subfactor, the approach offered by the Leidos proposal offered an advantage over the approach offered by the KBR proposal.

Upon reviewing the findings of the SEB, I concurred that both Offerors proposed excellent management approaches. As already noted above, I did not simply use a mathematical formula, but conducted a comparative analysis to determine which Offeror provides best value to the Government. I found numerous areas where both offered equally excellent approaches, but also several areas where Leidos differentiated itself.

First, under the Subfactor Title “Management and Organizational Structure”, with regards to significant strengths, both Offerors’ proposals granted full autonomy to their Program Managers for day to day management of the contract and decision making on key issues. There were no meaningful discriminators between the two Offerors for that finding.

Leidos received a significant strength for its proposed technology solutions to increase efficiency and effectiveness, increase transparency, and reduce duplication, which will increase infrastructure efficiency and enable highly effective and efficient contract management. I found the tools proposed by Leidos to be of particular note because they will minimize errors and save time associated with data entry, as well as aid in reviews, audits, and accurate decision making for NASA. In addition to the tools it described, Leidos proposed to utilize a unique contract management structure to manage contract and task modifications, work volume fluctuations, and initiation and tracking of technical direction. Leidos’ proposed approach for using tools to track skills, certifications, and resources will allow it to quickly staff NASA’s projects with personnel with the appropriate skill mix and certifications. The Leidos proposal also outlined a proactive approach focused on improvement and problem resolution, consistent with industry best practice, which will significantly increase efficiency and effectiveness. While KBR did receive a strength in this area for its proposed technology and proactive approaches towards identifying issues, Leidos’ proposed approach demonstrated a more comprehensive understanding of the processes required for proactive improvement and problem resolution with regards to contract management, and clearly detailed both what its process was and how it would be implemented.

KBR proposed excellent processes to capture and track costs and a continuous improvement process, receiving a significant strength for its proposal; however, Leidos’ proposal also received a strength in this element for its effective solutions for tracking and reporting schedule and cost, demonstrated understanding of the required processes, tools that allow for on demand analysis, and a continuous improvement program. KBR’s proposal also received an unmatched strength for its technical and business assistance provided by corporate offices. However; overall, when comparing the strengths and significant strengths received by each Offeror, I believe that Leidos’ proposed problem resolution techniques, as well as its technology and management solutions, stood out within the Management and Organization Structure Subfactor Title as providing significant added value to the Government with its proposed resource management tools that will enhance FILMSS 2 contract management, even accounting for work volume fluctuations.

Next, with regards to the “Key Personnel Commitment Letters, Resumes, and Position Descriptions”, while KBR received a strength for proposing a management team with some personnel who were highly qualified, Leidos received a significant strength because the proposal differentiated itself by offering an entire management team whose qualifications, including education, credentials, and extensive experience, all significantly exceeded the requirements defined in its position descriptions. Each Offeror received one other strength under this Subfactor Title for its proposal, but I did not find them to be discriminators. The Leidos proposal received a strength for its process for replacing Key Personnel, while the KBR proposal received a strength for its basis for designating Key positions.

Next, with regards to “Staffing, Recruitment, Retention and Training”, I noted that the

Leidos proposal received two significant strengths: for its process, staffing, related tools and marketing strategies to attract talent; as well as its approach to retaining incumbent personnel. Its proposal received three strengths with regards to: proposed assessment methodologies for measuring staffing effectiveness; mitigating difficulties in fulfilling staffing requirements; and approaches to awards, recognition, and career progression as a mitigation to the risk of staffing vacancies. KBR’s proposal received two significant strengths in this Subfactor Title; one matched the Leidos proposal’s significant strength for approach to retaining incumbent personnel, and the other was assigned for demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of potential staffing challenges and mitigation, an area where Leidos received a strength. KBR also received three strengths for: its approach to leveraging an effective strategy for staffing the skill mix necessary to perform defined requirements; its approach to short notice, rapid recruiting of personnel;

and approaches to awards, recognition, and career progression. Ultimately, after reviewing the relative merits of these findings, on the whole I found no meaningful discriminators between the two Offerors in this area of Staffing, Recruitment, Retention, and Training.

Next, for “Subcontractor Management/Partnering Approach” I noted that both Offerors received a strength for their plans for monitoring subcontractor performance. I noted no discriminators between the two proposals.

Next, for “Total Compensation Plan” I noted that KBR received an unmatched strength for its very effective proposed total compensation plan; KBR’s plan offered a unique and flexible compensation approach that will increase worker flexibility, leading to support during surge periods.

Finally, both Offerors received a single significant strength for “Phase-In”; each proposed plan offered a highly effective and efficient approach to Phase-In. I did not consider either of the Offerors’ proposed approaches to Phase-In to constitute discriminators.

Turning next to the third and least heavily weighted Mission Suitability Subfactor, “Small Business Utilization,” I noted that each Offeror’s proposal was assigned two significant strength findings. Upon reviewing these findings, I concurred that both Offerors proposed equally excellent approaches to satisfying the small business intentions of the FILMSS 2 contract. Accordingly, I determined that there were no meaningful discriminators in this subfactor.

Overall, Offerors in the competitive range warranted the excellent ratings they received in the three Mission Suitability subfactors. However, after careful evaluation, as detailed above, I have determined that the Leidos Mission Suitability proposal offers an advantage over the KBR Mission Suitability proposal. In my judgement, and consistent with the point scores assigned under the Technical Approach Subfactor, the approach offered by the Leidos proposal offered an advantage over the approach offered by the KBR Proposal. Although KBR’s proposal provided for an excellent public affairs strategy in its Technical Approach that I determined to be advantageous, the Leidos Mission Suitability proposal offers a superior systematic and comprehensive approach to conducting scientific research in the area of life sciences and bioengineering during the performance of this contract and demonstrated its capability to do so in the hypothetical case study. Leidos differentiated itself by its processes for defining success factors and incentivizing data capture and scientific publication of results throughout all phases of the experimental process. Furthermore, its proposed approach in the area of critical science support and integration of large disparate scientific teams will contribute to success during the course of performance of the FILMSS 2 contract, because as NASA tackles the more complex science questions, active support of larger collaborative science teams will be of greater and greater importance.

With regards to the Mission Suitability Management Approach Subfactor, although KBR offered an unmatched…